User:Elizlilyd/Fender's blue butterfly/TheChurroGuy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Elizlilyd


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elizlilyd/Fender's_blue_butterfly?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fender's blue butterfly

Lead
It appears that the lead contains the same exact paragraph as the current version of the article. The current version contains a second paragraph that was omitted from the draft, but it was expanded upon in the subsections of the article. It does indeed have an introductory sentence and is concise, but it does not contain a transition that summarizes the article's information as that was the purpose of the second paragraph that was omitted.

Content
The content added (host plant, mutualism, and conservation) is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There is not content that is missing nor is there content that does not belong. The article does discuss historically underrepresented topics as the species is classified as endangered.

Tone and Balance
The content is framed as neutral, but emphasizes conservation efforts. It would be interesting and more holistic to consider how humans contribute to habitat loss specifically rather than broadly stating they have the lack of ability to fly from one patch to another.

Sources and References
All new content is backed up by a variety of sources ranging from research papers to articles from government websites. The content does accurately reflect the content of the cited sources, but some research articles are behind a paywall in which the content could not be verified. The sources are from reputable sources which have been reviewed previously but does not include a diverse set of authors. The links do work.

Organization
The content is well-written and free of grammatical and spelling errors. The content added such as the life cycle of the Fender's blue butterfly is listed in order from top to bottom.

Images and Media
The article does include images of the species in question including the same image from the current article summarizing the ecological classification and significance of the species. It contains relevant information in its caption, laid out in an appealing way, and adheres to copyright regulations.

Overall impressions
The article is more complete, but the lead of the article is exactly the same as the current version of the article. I am not entirely sure if the drafts should simply expand on the current version or seek to create a page unique from the current version. The draft feels more complete as it places the referred species in an ecological content that makes it more connected to the wider biosphere. A part of the lead can be used to summarize the life cycle of the organism as well.